Ross v Lane

The appeal in *Ross v Lane* concerned a dispute over a development application approved by the local council for modifications and extensions to an apartment building, including the construction of an additional storey. The appellant, a resident of a neighbouring apartment block, argued that the development substantially affected views from their apartment and that the development approval was invalid. The central question was whether State Environment Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (“SEPP 65”) applied to the development and, if so, whether it had been complied with.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the development constituted a "substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing building" for the purposes of SEPP 65, and consequently, whether the applicability of SEPP 65 was a matter for the Court to determine or for the consent authority. The appellant contended that the development fell within the scope of SEPP 65 and that the council had failed to properly consider or comply with its provisions.

The Court of Appeal held that the development did not amount to a "substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing building" as contemplated by SEPP 65. Therefore, SEPP 65 was not applicable to the development application. The Court reasoned that the modifications and extensions were not of a scale or nature that would trigger the application of the policy, which is designed to regulate the design quality of new residential apartment developments or significant alterations to existing ones.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.